Talk:Canon EF lens mount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NOT Advertisement!!![edit]

I think this text is not formulated like an advertisement. In fact this text right now helped me to understand some important technical details. I did not feel "advertized" or manipulated. Please consider to remove the "spam"-tag from this article. Deleting this article would be incredibly stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lens table[edit]

I hate the way that table looks - no offense at all to the author. Canon's lenses have standard nomenclature like "EF28mm f/1.8 USM" that this doesn't follow.

I'm wondering whether it's worthwhile to fix it, because the Canon Lens Museum (linked at the bottom of the page) has all that information in it - should that be replicated? Joe n bloe 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Canon's nomenclature should be at least partially inherited. Like any large tabular data, I think it should further be moved to "List of EF lenses manufactured by Canon". If there's interest in writing articles about particularly odd items in the lineup, that would probably work fine as well. Maybe something cute with EasyTimeline to show the ranges covered. And maybe someone will write an article about the weird EF 35-80 f/4-5.6 PZ, too. grendel|khan 10:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll see if I can buy one of those weird Power Zoom (PZ) lenses. :) Then I can write something about it. Joseph N Hall 00:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That'd definitely be interesting. There was a period when people thought that Power Zoom was something SLRs needed; Pentax at least did some too.
As to the table; I agree that the biggest problem is that the lens names are not actually shown; there's just a big Article link instead. We should definitely have a list, though, and I don't see that it should necessarily be broken out into a separate article unless we really need to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
As an addition, I do in general prefer to do group lens articles, though; e.g. Canon EF 50 mm lens. Articles on individual lens models tend to be very short and full of boilerplate. Doing a group of similar lenses together allows them to be compared and contrasted a bit more. I'm doing this on Canon FD 200 mm lens right now, for instance - it's useful to see the range. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Covering lenses one per article seems to make the best sense to me, or at most one "type" per article - e.g. grouping the EF 400/2.8 I, II, and IS together along with an explanation of how the lens evolved. The 50mm page that covers everything from the 50/1.0 to the 50/1.8 II is just ... well, nuts. What does the EF 50/1.0 have to do with the 50/1.8 II? Not a thing. They have completely different uses. Lenses like the 50/1.0, 85/1.2, and 200/1.8 (I and II) deserve their own pages, or at least some kind of detailed exposition whenever someone gets around to it. I have a 200/1.8 so I may be biased of course. The 85/1.8 and 100/2, on the other hand, are basically the same lens and would do fine on the same page. Joseph N Hall 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, all the EF 50mm lenses have in common that they're the same focal length on the same system, and one page on all of them make it easier, IMO, to compare and contrast - so you can see how honking heavy that f/1.0 L lens is, for example.
I can see your point, though. The biggest issue I have on it right now is that I don't think we have enough data on any of those lenses to write more than a stub article about each of them - and that ends up being mostly boilerplate and specification table. Ideally, of course, we could write much more - but that would require us to have enough info to fill out a whole article on design philosophy, performance including MTF graphs and photos of test charts, sample photos, etc etc. Frankly, we don't have that now. I'd love it if we did; however, WP:NOR in general precludes us doing our own lens testing and publishing it here!
There's plenty of published data for EF lenses. This includes MTF charts from Canon. (They are not "fair use" though.) It is easy to find sources supporting claims like "the 200/1.8 and 135/2 are the sharpest lenses Canon has made". Likewise there is no "original research" involved in taking a photo with an 85/1.2 wide open illustrating its shallow depth of field (and the aberrations/vignetting that come along with that) and adding that to an article - no more than there is in taking a photo through a fisheye lens and posting that as an example of what a photo taken with a fisheye lens looks like. There is lots to write about Canon lenses. You could look at the Lens Work books for example. (I have all three - one is for FD and the other two are for EF.) There are the SportsShooter forums, the Fred Miranda forums, Luminous Landscape, and so on for more information. Etc. etc. etc. :-) Joseph N Hall 11:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that random user reviews from the likes of SportsShooter, Fred Miranda sites are really usable for wikipedia, but commissioned reviews from those kind of sites can definitely be used. I do believe overall rankings from e.g. Fred Miranda could be used, though.
Notably, the FD Lens Work book is available online: - obviously without official sanction, but I'm sure Canon no longer cares, they no longer support FD systems at all.
So I'd say: if you have enough info to make an article about a specific lens model stand by itself, go for it! Obviously some lenses have been talked about more than others. It might be valuable to have an overview article on similar focal-length lenses for comparitive statistics and (referenced) opinions, too.
There's certainly a lot of scope for better written content about photographic equipment on Wikipedia, Canon or otherwise ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I just prefer seeing one longer article about a whole class of lenses than a collection of little stub articles with no more than a paragraph about each one. Your preferences may indeed vary! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the table format hasn't really changed at all since this thread was started. I'd like to make at least one or two changes:

  1. The "Macro" column should be removed from the Zoom table. They're separate tables, and no zooms are macro. What point is there in having a column where every entry is "No"?
  2. The "Article" link column should be removed. This is almost as bad, IMO, as a "here" link. Why not link the focal length (a lens's primary identifier) to its article?

I propose the following format:

Focal length Aperture USM IS L-series DO
16-35 mm 2.8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No

Note that I've also made the centered text a table-global setting, which should simplify the markup. Comments?

-- Fru1tbat 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to make those very changes for some time now, but have never had a sufficiently large block of time to do so. Obviously, I support this change. Mindmatrix 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that the tables need a complete re-write. The first column should really be the full lens names (e.g. "EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM"), with a key somewhere describing how to interpret the name. Canon's naming system is pretty straightforward and consistent. The way the tables are set up right now is pretty difficult to read, and the lenses aren't easily distinguished, especially when there are multiple lenses that use the same focal length range. The remaining columns in the table should give information that can't be gleaned from the lens name, like other lens features (full-time manual focus, etc.?) and dates produced (the Canon Camera Museum has introduction dates, but not end of production dates). Maybe something like:
Lens Introduced In
Features Notes
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM December 2001 Yes Yes - FT-M, I/R, ...
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM November 1992 Yes Yes II FT-M
I'd personally prefer abbreviations for the "Features" column, which would mean adding a key, of course. I'd reserve the "Comments" column for text notes
Other columns that could be added:
  • AF motor type (i.e. ring USM, micro USM, whatever)
  • Maximum magnification
Any other ideas?
-- Fru1tbat 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of features as a column. Although as soon as I saw it, I had to mention that FT-M is redundant; all USM lenses are full-time manual focus override -able. But things like what generation of IS would be helpful, since older lenses "give" two stops while the latest "give" four. Some allow for panning "mode 2" and others don't. Ideally it would be fantastic to have a thumbnail MTF chart for each lens, but that's probably too big an undertaking. MSRP would probably be useful; it doesn't reflect the "street price," or foreign currency, but at least it's skewed equally across the board.
ForrestCroce 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite true, re: FT-M. Yes, all ring-type USMs have FT-M, but Canon uses the "USM" label for micro-USMs as well, and the only Micro USM with FT-M that I'm aware of is the 50/1.4 (uses special gearing, or something. I have the 50/1.4 and other lenses with ring-USMs, and the focus feel is quite different). Many USM lenses, for instance the 28-200/3.5-5.6 USM, do not have FT-M.
As for MTF charts, I doubt we could just download them from Canon and use them here, and having such detail is probably going too far anyway. IS mode is easy enough to add, though. Just put it in the features column (since having its own column for a feature that applies to a small percentage of lenses would clutter the table, as with the old ones).
Since a new table will take quite a bit of work, I'm creating a temporary working area for a new table at Talk:Canon EF lens mount/Temp Table using something I started throwing together a while ago. Please expand it as necessary and discuss changes there, I suppose (what's the convention for discussion changes to a work page?).
--Fru1tbat 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the problem with including MSRP is that it's not possible to directly compare lenses that weren't available at the same time. EF lenses span a 20 year stretch of time, and many lenses have been introduced and discontinued over that time. Inflation means it's not as useful a comparison. There's also, as you mention, the fact that MSRP and real street price are often quite separated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This table is incomplete without angles of view! Flanker235 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Lens articles by category?[edit]

Instead of grouping lenses in articles by focal lengths I thought it might be better to group them into articles by common usage of lenses. I created this article on portrait lenses to show what I mean. Reub2000 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My issue with that is that I feel that it breaks NPOV and is limiting. Not everyone uses the same lenses for the same purposes; I'd say that unless Canon or someone else fairly authoritative groups the lenses that way, we shouldn't. A generic article on the Portrait lens needs to exist, of course. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Canon long L lens "putty" color[edit]

Happen to have a reference for that? I have heard it before and I believe you, but I've never seen it "from the horse's mouth" so to speak. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have already contradicted myself. Chuck Westfall, "the" Canon USA rep who interacts with the online community, had the following to say early this year:

Interestingly, Canon has not officially named the color(s) that have been used over the years for its "white" lenses. This specification is never listed for current EF lenses, even in our internal technical documentation. However, the first "white" Canon lens was the FD600mm f/4.5 S.S.C., which was announced in July of 1976. At that time, Canon Inc. described the lens barrel color as "Silver Grey." They said that the new finish was selected due to the suggestions of professional photographers who felt that the lighter color would absorb less heat than a black lens barrel, thus reducing the likelihood of condensation in humid environments. Over time, the color of subsequent "white" lenses became brighter and slightly warmer in tint than the FD600mm, but the functionality has remained the same. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, our "white" lenses were often outnumbered by the black lenses of our competitors at sporting events. But ever since the mid-1990s with the introduction of the EOS-1N and its successors, Canon has gained the #1 position in market share and our "white" lenses have become the norm rather than the exception among professional photographers worldwide.

Still, I believe that Canon has used the term "putty" to refer to the color, but I could be wrong. Maybe the next time I'm on the phone with service I'll ask. Joseph N Hall 11:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tables for lenses: any benefit?[edit]

Is there any benefit for the lens table over a simple list, except for "looking spiffy" in some peoples' opinion? In other words, would Canon EF 14 mm f/2.8L USM say everything that needs to be said? We should probably have an explanation of the terminology, of course.

As to lens names for articles: IMO, we should have a space between number and unit for millimeters, to follow Wikipedia convention (and we'll have the units freaks fixing it all the time if we decide otherwise) and we should use a lowercase f number in the name, not uppercase F or a ratio (e.g. 1:2.8). Canon uses the ratio on the lens itself but seems to use the lowercase f in text. In the article itself, I prefer using the italic f which can be sourced through the {{f/}} template, e.g. f/2.8.

There should be no space between the f-number and the 'L' designation, if present, following Canon's practice. Some sources make the 'L' red in running text; I don't think we need to bother, personally.

How do those guidelines sound? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the tables from Canon FD, on my increasing belief that they added nothing other than spiffiness at the expense of actual information. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have explained this many times, in many places, and in many applications. Tabular data should be presented in tables. Cburnett 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
But is it tabular data or is it a list? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Sealing[edit]

I think environmental sealing should be added to the table as most of the newer L series lenses have them. I added it to the table of the 70-200mm (for the 2.8 and 4 IS models), but it has a better fit here.

I'm a little concerned with the reference to the EF as a bayonet style connection. Although technically speaking they are a bayonet slide lock. they are never regarded as such. Only FD lens are called breech lock or bayonet style, with the obvious hook in attachments. Also note that not All EF lenses are EOS compatible, they may attach to an EOS system but there is a laundry list of lenses old and new with the EF EOS attachment that are not compatible with today's digital cameras, this is especially true with the first generations of EF lenses.

You have bayonet vs. breech misunderstood. FD was a breech mount. EF, like the vast majority of lens mounts in the modern era, is a bayonet.
Since EF is the lens mount of the EOS system, all EF lenses are EOS compatible. However, it's true that some lenses have been incompatible with some cameras, although to my memory this has been largely third-party lenses with reverse-engineered protocols. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffractive optics[edit]

That chapter bandies the terms diffractive and refractive about but doesn't tell me the blooming difference to normal lenses. Someone in the know please do a rewrite!

BTW Canon explains diffractive here: Maikel 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Refractive is what normal glass lenses are. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Third-party lenses[edit]

Based on the recent edit that leaves the section in a weird state — "It is not accurate to call these lenses EF mount...It is accurate to call these lenses EF mount..." — perhaps a discussion that includes some sources will be useful in coming to a consensus.

I've never owned any third party lenses personally, so I can't comment on their compatibility or whether they should be referred to as "EF-compatible," "EOS-compatible," or some other distinction. Megaversal (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change because it leaves the article in a worse state. However, our wording here appears to be POV and somewhat original research. Rather than making a decision ourselves on whether it's valid to call them EF mount or not, we should report on what is said by the parties. What does Canon say? What do the third-party manufacturers say? What do reputable sources say? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find any information on Canon's website regarding third party lenses, but didn't come up with anything. I've only ever seen anecdotal evidence regarding problems. The third party lens manufacturers seem to believe their lenses mostly work:
19. Are all Sigma lenses compatible with my AF SLR?
Generally, all current Sigma AF lenses are compatible with all current and older models of Canon...
From [Sigma - Lens Questions]
Megaversal (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
AFAIR, there have been instances in the past when some lenses needed to be returned to the manufacturer for software updates to work with newer Canon cameras. I'll see if I can actually get any sources for that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Megaversal, note that in your quote Sigma says "all CURRENT sigma AF lenses are compatible". Naturally they test their current production lenses against Canon's latest cameras, but Sigma lenses from ten or twenty years ago, long out of production, were never tested against today's cameras and do sometimes have compatibility problems. The EF electronic signaling protocols are proprietary, so each third-party manufacturer has to reverse engineer them to make compatible auto-focus lenses. Some do better than others. I'm not aware of any Tokina or Tamron lenses that have problems, but Sigma has at times offered "re-chipping" (i.e. firmware upgrades) to make older lenses compatible with newer cameras, which pretty clearly shows that they have some history of problems in this area. The worst of it is that Sigma only offers re-chipping for a certain period of time; many older lenses they will no longer upgrade, leaving the end user dead in the water.
Craig418 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

5200 F14 prime lens[edit]

Maybe someone can talk here about that monster:

i don't write quite well in english. --Wikit2007 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Impressive lens, but too bad it's not an EF mount :( Nebrot (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Frame compatibility[edit]

I read in an Amazon review that EF-S lenses (such as the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens) are not compatible with Canon's "high-end Full Frame cameras". If someone knows the details of this (I don't) it would be very helpful to the article to state it in the introduction. Which High End cameras? does this include the EOS5D? And so on. Praqctically, that would be very useful information for someone thinking of shelling our six hundred quid on a lens, who aspires to upgrade to a full frame camera at some point in the future. Like me!

Thanks ElectricRay (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ElectricRay, EF-S lenses such as the Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens are not compatible with Full-frame digital SLR and 135_film cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II or Canon EOS-3. They only work with Canon EF-S lens mount type cameras. However, EF mount lenses will work with any type of Canon EOS SLR. Hence why this is not discussed in this article, but most extensively in the EF-S article. Hope that clears things up. Nebrot (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thanks - that does. I had done some more research and reached that conclusion. However, I have now added that fact to the introduction of this article precisely because people like me might not know there's a difference between EF and EF-S at all.ElectricRay (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article is written like a non-neutral advertisement. Nothing from Canon marketing, for instance, is going to mention third party lenses at all, much less give instructions for circumventing the obstacles to their use. One could write something like,"Canon addresses this issue with technique 'A,' although Nikon and Leica use technique 'B.' Tamron uses technique 'C,' while Sigma does not mention the question." tldoranTldoran (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Canon EF Mount prime lenses timeline[edit]

I have added this table, I was looking for something like this and I haven't found anything, that's why I decided to make one myself. I hope you find it useful. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia (beside some minor adjustments) so it could have been better. Feel free to tweak it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radustoicescu (talkcontribs) 09:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

500 f4.5 and 1200 f5.6 are now both discontinued, but I don't know the year, if you do, please edit the table. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radustoicescu (talkcontribs) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets skip the Canon marketing FUD[edit]

The width of a lens mount does not have an effect on the maximum aperture. Canon briefly introduced an f/1.0 lens that was expensive, large and soft and then replaced it with an f/1.2. Nikon currently make an f/1.2 manual lens which is bad and have in the past made the legendary NOCT f/1.2.

While the Canon PR dept likes to claim that Nikon can't match the speed of their lenses due to the mount constraint, the fact is that excluding a dud lens that appears to have had little point other than marketing, they already have. It is not so long since Canon PR was telling the world that the F-mount cannot support full frame format, which is a little stupid since they have supported full frame since 1958 - thats what we used to use in the film days.

Without a reference to an independent authority on lens design, the claim that the mount size is superior is B/S. The maximum aperture is determined by the optics at the front end of the lens. By the time that the light has reached the mount it had better be pretty close to the sensor area it is intended to hit or it is going to have to take a very sharp turn which is going to require a much larger radius of curvature than is going to fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lens present?[edit]

Canon's documents shows pins 2 and 3 as being P-GND., do you have a citation for pin 2 being used as a lens present indicator? The large size of the contact would imply to me that it is a grounding one, and that the normal sized pin 3 might be for signaling. However, the citations do not support that. -- Autopilot (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

L Series[edit]

This section is a bit messy with uncited statements or opinion on the 28-300mm (most reviews and individuals say that image quality is, for example, "on a very high if not exceptional level") and the wording and grammar need a little tidying. The statement on EF-S requires some slight further explanation as although the article does mention the difference, many folk would not read it all or go to the separate EF-S article. I will edit these things. JohnB57 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening section[edit]

In the opening section there is the paragraph:

"In 2003, Canon introduced the EF-S lens mount, a derivative of the EF mount that is strictly for digital EOS cameras with a 1.6x crop released after 2003. EF lenses can be mounted on EF-S bodies but may not work on all function settings resulting in communications error, albeit with cropped image, while EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on EF bodies."

I've got plent of EF lenses, and an EF-S body (550D) and never had a function problem, additionally I've looked for info on this on the Canon website, documentation and guides and I can't find anything on this in Google, does anyone have a reference for this otherwise I think this should be removed, as to the best of my knowledge it's untrue.

MattUK (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the statement that EF lenses may have "communication errors" on EF-S bodies is utterly false. It is true that some older third-party lenses (particularly Sigmas) designed for Canon's EF mount may have compatibility problems with newer cameras, but that has nothing to do with the lens mount as such, it's just an inherent problem with third parties trying to reverse-engineer Canon's proprietary signaling protocols.
Craig418 (talk) 01:46, 6 Sep 2011 (UTC)


Three last notes (16.-18.) seem to have broken links, they reference PDF documents, but redirect to some russian forum instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

IS on 24/28?[edit]

The table lists the EF 24mm f/2.8 and EF 28mm f/2.8 as having Image Stabilization, but this doesn't appear to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbprime (talkcontribs) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canon EF lens mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)